Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) are considered a highly valuable design, providing evidence for clinical decisions in real-world settings.1 The conduct and setting of pRCTs mimic the usual practice of care while trying to maintain the internal validity of randomization,2 and they are becoming increasingly common.3 Their perceived and documented strengths and weaknesses need to be empirically studied beyond the theoretical expectations. In this study, we assessed the main characteristics among numerous recently published RCTs tagged as pragmatic, how the authors supported their claims for pragmatism, and whether major limitations stemming from the pragmatic design were noted in the articles.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Janiaud P, Dal-Ré R, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of Pragmatism in Recently Published Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1278–1280. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3321
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: